Clause 54
Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
2:15 pm
David Burrowes (Shadow Minister, Justice; Enfield, Southgate, Conservative)
The broad rationale of the clause is clear and one cannot object to the concern to avoid prejudice against people who have received cautions, reprimands or warnings when they seek jobs and have to disclose their spent cautions. The position regarding the disclosure of spent convictions is set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. We accept that broad rationale, but I want to highlight our concerns.
Cautions, reprimands and warnings are not convictions, which is why they were outside the ambit of the 1974 Act, and it is important that we do not creep into considering those disposals to be on a par with convictions. That chimes with the earlier debate on pre-court disposals and the importance of distinguishing such disposals from a conviction. Plainly, a caution, reprimand or warning is an admission of an offence in which there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, but they are wholly different from convictions and should be treated as such. We are concerned that the good intention of trying to prevent prejudice against people with spent cautions does not develop into their being seen as equal to convictions. It is important that we recognise the differences.
The rationale is based on the disclosability of previous cautions. What evidence is there that there is a problem regarding the disclosure of spent cautions? In their consultation paper of 19 August 1999, the Government said that
“it is anomalous for cautions, reprimands and final warnings to be disclosable in circumstances where convictions are not.”
The evidence was supposedly there then. Why, despite the number of criminal justice Bills that have gone through Parliament, are we now in a position that this clause has been added to the Bill? What additional evidence that there is a need to legislate is there now that was not there in 1999, when the supposed anomaly was highlighted? Has there been a problem in the intervening time without legislation that justifies the provision?